Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Friday, February 22, 2013

A classic and yet still an incredible sexy look. A beautiful women wearing a simple white t-shirt and skinny denim jeans in cowgirl boots. I call them cowgirl boots if they are worn by sexy women. This look is classic and why is it classic? And if you answer because it has been around a long time, you would be correct and also guilty of stating the obvious. But the better question would why has it been around a long time? And if you answer because it is classic, then you would be guilty of being a smartass. The real reason why this look has been around so long, the second edition now ten-years after the first edition in the late 1970s and 1980s, is because it is a great way for sexy attractive women to show off their legs. Really the whole point of skinny jeans both denim and leather and of course the long boots and putting the jeans in the boots. Showing people, I imagine especially men what kind of legs and butt that you have.

Medicaid expansion should be a no brainer for some red state governors who have a high level of people without health insurance. Because they can't afford it and have high costs of people who go to the emergency room for their healthcare and this would help them bring down those costs.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

I believe that Barack Obama himself would be the first to say that he wasn't interested in being the first African American President. Or that he wants to be President of African-America but that he wanted when he decided to run for President to be President of the United States. And it so happens that he is the first African American President of the United States. But it just goes to show you how far America has come with all the racial difficulty we've had as a country with all the racism. That we do have an African American President whose father even though he was born and raised in Kenya. That is Barack Sr. that he probably had some ancestors who were brought over to the United States as slaves and these. Slaves are also Barack Jr. ancestors as well and yet Barack Jr. is now the President of the United States a country that once where slavery was legal. And effected millions of Africans negatively and robbed them of their homeland, their culture, families, heritage and so fourth. To work as slaves in a country where they never heard of, didn't speak the language and so fourth.

Barack Obama represents several things in this story and I believe all of them positive. One again how far we've come as a country in race relations where the overwhelmingly majority of the voters in this. Country are Caucasian where racism isn't as big of a factor in this community that Progressives would have us believe. But where its still a factor and there are too many ignorant Caucasians that would never vote for any African American or any other minority American for President of the United States. Yet President Obama was reelected with still roughly 4-10 Caucasians and won Southern states like. Virginia and Florida so these are good signs for the country that we are moving forward when it comes to race. Relations but another positive aspect is that it still shows that the American dream is still alive where no matter how you. Start out in life if you work hard, gets yourself educated and make the right decisions in life early on and build off of that. You can still be successful in America.

But going forward there are still huge challenges for the rest of the African American community. That still trails Caucasians and Asians in most if not all economic categories and still have higher rates of. Poverty and unemployment and out of wedlock births and unwanted pregnancies and people in the criminal justice system and so fourth. But the good news is that there are lessons that can be learned from our President that if you make the right choices in life. Early on and build off of that and government does what it should can do as far as opportunity to a quality education and job training. That any American can be successful in life as well.

Once government tries to protect people from themselves with prohibition and other methods. It ends up arresting people and sending them to places that are horrible for ourselves for the most part. In order to protect us from ourselves, so the unintended consequence which a lot of unintended consequences tend. To come from Big Government, is that government ends up hurting the very people they are suppose to be protecting. The War on Drugs is the perfect example of that where millions of Americans end up in prison for doing something thats bad for them. End up in prison getting no help for whatever addiction they may have and without much of a future to look forward to. Because now they've left prison with perhaps an addiction but also with a criminal record and good luck getting a good job with a criminal. Record even if its drug related where you weren't the dealer. So trying to protect people from themselves not only hurts the very people that Big Government is trying to protect. But it doesn't work because those unhealthy behaviors continue and if anything grow, again take the War on Drugs.

Where government thats good because its limited can play a constructive role in the areas of lets say healthcare. With all the ideas to ban junk food and tobacco and so fourth, is forcing the people who make unhealthy choices to have to deal with the consequences of their bad decisions on their own. Instead of passing those costs onto people who've chosen to live healthy. And starts with government on its own by stop subsidizing junk food and drink in this country especially as it relates to. Public assistance but all other forms of public service in this country and then have people who've chosen to. Live unhealthy pay for the consequences of those decisions. In the areas of taxing junk food and drink, higher premiums for healthcare for unhealthy people. And using the revenue from these things to pay for emergency healthcare thats far too often goes uncompensated in this country. And then subsidizing healthy behavior so people see the benefits of living unhealthy as well as the. Financial costs of living unhealthy.

The only way government can work well and be effective in a Liberal-Democracy. Is by being smart and limited and recognizing that there's a limit to what government can try to do for people even for. Their own good before it ends up actually hurting them like in the War on Drugs. And that for people to be free and government to be effective the people need to be held accountable for the decisions that they. Make both good and bad.

Making welfare payments efficient, is that even possible with all of the fraud in the entire social insurance system. Like people winning the lottery but still collecting food assistance or unemployment insurance. But for the sake of this post lets say it is otherwise I would have to write an entire blog about welfare fraud in this country. Which would probably put most if not all readers to sleep reading it, if they make it through the whole way. And I would have a hard time staying awake long enough to finish that piece myself. But for the sake of argument lets say it is and I would just say leading off that if you want a more efficient. Social insurance system in this country its really simple as far as what needs to happen but a little. More difficult in as far as bringing it about. But at the end of the day you need fewer people collecting public assistance which that alone would bring down the fraud in the system. But that gets to better economic and job growth, better education system and empowering people to. Work themselves off of public assistance for good.

Now the details for people to get off of public assistance. They need to be incentivized to do so, meaning that low income and low skilled people live in the real world as well as far as. Having to pay bills and take care of their families and if you can make more money not working through public assistance. Then working and that they have to take care of themselves and their families, then they have to be making more money working. Short and long term and in the short term for low income low skilled workers whatever full time jobs they may have or a collection. Of jobs, they have to be making more money working those jobs then not working at all. So work simply has to pay more then not working even for low income jobs. So people not working know for them to be able to make more money and rely less on food banks, as well as other private. Charities, as well as public assistance, they need to go to work.

Long term as we are empowering people to get off of public assistance all together and not have to collect a dime from it. They need to be able to and get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves. Finishing high school or getting a GED, as well as assistance for vocational and job training. Or community colleges for a combination of all of these things so they can get themselves a good job. So short term people who are currently not working, go to work even in a low skilled and low income job. So they can get some experience and have that job pay more then not working at all. While at the same time getting assistance so they can finish high school in one form or another. So they can be in community college or vocational or job training and have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job and leave. Public assistance all together.

As an actual Liberal-Democrat not a Social-Democrat or Libertarian. I believe that public assistance should be so effective that it becomes obsolete. Meaning knowing thats probably never going to happen but always striving for that goal anyways so public assistance becomes. Effective as it possibly can and the way to get there is simply making work no matter the income level or skills set. Pay more then not working at all.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

I agree with Yaron Brook that social contract is not the right way to describe the safety net or public social insurance. That for a contract to be a contract, two separate parties have to agree on terms, put those terms in writing and sign the same contract. And when we all start working and paying taxes, we haven't signed an agreement or contract to allow for government. To take that money from us, actually we don't even decide for ourselves which country we are born in and where we are raised. Our parents do that for us but I'm not sure thats the point because I agree that with the notion that taxes are money we all pay on condition of being. Able to live in a civilized society and to not have to live in anarchy. If you are an Anarchist or a classical Libertarian you probably disagree with that. And then the real debate at least for me that the left and right have debating in America ever since we established. The Federal income tax a hundred years ago, to what degree should we be taxed as individuals and. Organizations and what should government at all levels be doing for us on our behalf, so for me thats the real debate.

When it comes to the safety net or social insurance, we need a safety net in America. Private and public and perhaps we could move to a fully private non profit social insurance system. In the future but until that happens government has a role not to take care of us or try to run. Our lives but to help people who for whatever reasons aren't at the time able to fend for themselves. Be able to get themselves on their feet and have income in the short term while they are putting themselves back in shape. To be able to go back to work and be able to pay their own way. Thats what the safety net is at least to me, thats what the Liberal model is when it comes to social insurance. That the Democratic Party by in large have embraced since the 1990s with Bill Clinton when he famously said. That public assistance should not be free and that physically and mentally able people should put themselves in position to be able to. Take care of themselves.

Entitlements are just that, you paid for something and now you are entitled for the reward of what you paid for. Whether its Social Security, Medicare, national security, public safety or whatever it may be. So as long as we are paying government for these services because they are taking our money to provide us with these services. We have the right to expect them to provide those services and when they aren't able to do don't. Then we should ask for our money back and take our business somewhere else.

Monday, February 18, 2013

This might be surprising but there are group or faction in the African American community. A Conservative-Libertarian faction that doesn't believe in affirmative action and if anything would. Like to see it repealed even though millions of African Americans have benefited from it and professor Thomas Sowell is one of them. They are against Affirmative Action because they see it as two forms of racism even though its designed to benefit groups of people who have. Been left out because of racial reasons or the lack of opportunities when it comes to education and economic development. And the reason for this has to do with the fact that they see affirmative action as racist but for a couple of reasons. One that denies Caucasians access to economic opportunity because of their race and that already too many Caucasians have access to. That opportunity and that the employer or whatever needs to be more diversified under law.

The other reason why some African Americans see affirmative action as racist because they believe that Progressives. Caucasian, African American and others view African Americans as secretively inferior to Caucasians and Asians and need special treatment. To be successful in life and basically see affirmative action as insulting towards African Americans and another. Form of government dependence rather then African Americans having the same freedom to be able to live and run their own lives. The same freedom that Caucasians and Asians have in America.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

When President Obama says that he wants an economy an economic system where all Americans have the ability to succeed. A real Capitalist economy, you get to the heart of his economic philosophy where all Americans have economic freedom. And not just the wealthy and well connected but people who come from modest means and are living modestly as adults. And when Peter Schiff says we don't have to create that economic system because we already have it. He's simply wrong otherwise 1/5 Americans wouldn't be living in poverty right now. Because we have the 39th education system in the World that leaves out way too many Americans at having the. Shot at having economic freedom that still the overwhelming majority of the country enjoys. We have an infrastructure system that has a 1T$ hole in it according to the US Core of Engineers. And is behind its long time competitors like in Europe as well as trailing its emerging competitors like Brazil and China. So we don't currently have an economic system where enough economic freedom is there.

The beauty of Liberal economics is that all Americans have a shot not a guarantee to succeed in life. Because we would all have access to a good education, we would have a modern infrastructure system that puts people to work. But also allows for our products and workers to be able to get around the country in a timely and affordable way. We have a tax system that promotes economic and job growth, as well as success. And discourages, unemployed, ignorance people who don't have the skills to be successful in life because they didn't get themselves a. Enough of an education, as well as dependence on public assistance that if you want to make a good living. And not live in poverty you really have to do everything you can for yourself and have the skills to be successful in life. And a public assistance system that empowers people who fall down to be able to get themselves back up.

Liberal economics a form of American Capitalism, also rewards people for then they take risks and are successful. And also holds people accountable when they make bad decisions. Instead of bailing people out when they run companies into the ground. With money from people who made the right decisions. This is the vision of economic Liberalism and is not the system that we have right now. Where unfortunately we are rewarding the opposite of things that we should be rewarding. Instead of success and good decision making.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

When you talk about the right wing at least in America, you are talking about a group or side of the American political spectrum. That represents several different political factions ranging from the center-right, where the Conservative-Libertarians are. To the Libertarian-right which is further to the right and then Neoconservatives and religious-conservatives. Christian-Theocrats really on the far-right and the Theocrats who along with the Neoconservatives who are basically. Confederates and represent the Bible Belt and rural America. So when you are talking about right wingers in America you should know who specially you are talking about, which faction of the. Right wing in America you are focused on.

The center-right doesn't like Barack Obama because of what they see as the excess of spending under his administration. As well as foreign policy as it relates to what they see as undeclared wars by President Obama and to a certain extend the use of drones. And even as it relates to the War on Terror and what they see as violations of civil liberties as it relates. To things like the Transportation Security Administration to use as an example. And they don't like President Obama because of what they see as overregulation by this administration. Libertarians don't like anything about Barack Obama and perhaps even see him as illegitimate to be President of the United States. And basically see him as a dictator who ignores the US Constitution when it comes to the economy but also civil liberties. The far-right doesn't like President Obama, some of them see him as an illegal immigrant who wasn't born as an. American citizen and there racial components to their opposition as well. Plus they don't him for ideological reasons across the board and someone they see as. Dismantling what they call traditional America.

What they don't understand or admit and thats each of these factions is for one that Barack Obama is not a Socialist or a Social-Democrat. Even but an economic Liberal who wants to have an American economy that works for everyone where all Americans have the opportunity to. Succeed with American Capitalism and have economic freedom instead of just the few of us on a percentage basis. Where all Americans have access to a good education, where we have a modern public infrastructure system. An energy policy that utilizes all of our natural resources and not just a few of them. And a public assistance system that empowers people who need it to be able to get themselves the same economic freedom that the rest of the country has. Through things like education, job training and job placement and not indefinite dependence. On public assistance but a path for these people to be successful in life as well.

President Obama doesn't have an agenda thats designed to empower the Federal Government or his office with all of the power in the country. Which is one of the most warped conspiracy theories I've ever heard but what he wants to do is empower Americans with a system. That promotes things like economic and job growth in the private sector with a infrastructure. Education, energy and tax and public assistance system that promotes economic freedom for everyone.

Friday, February 15, 2013

As a Liberal I believe in having an economy that works for as many people as possible. Where our poverty level wouldn't be as high as it is today and we are more competitive with the. Rest of the developed world but to have an economy like that where most of the country is enjoying. Economic freedom and where our poverty level looks more like our normal unemployment level, instead of 3-4 times as high. It helps to have facts and use real terms and terms like wealth gap or income inequality which are not real and kinda made up doesn't help the situation. I mean how is it unfair that someone with a good education and is very productive. Makes 10-20 times as much as someone without much of an education or perhaps just finished high school. And maybe a little college or someone who didn't finish high school and is unemployed and living. Completely off of public assistance, the person with a good education who is productive and. Invests and creates things and so fourth. Should make a lot more money then people who don't at least in a Capitalist system with economic freedom.

Now for people who grow up in poverty and the only option they have for school is some run down school. Where they are not going to get the skills that they need to be successful in life and know this. And decide to dropout, which would be bad decision on their part but its easy to understand why they may feel like that. Compared with someone who grew up in wealth with two successful parents and so fourth. And has the option of going to a great public school or their choice of great private schools. Now the poor kid might have a very good case to make, why should the rich kid get all of the access to having a great life. And I'm stuck with what's left that no one wants to use, the poor kid would have a very good case to make there. And those are the students we should be targeting so our poverty level isn't so high in this. Country but to say that its unfair that successful people make so much more money the unsuccessful people. Is simply not true.

We don't have too many successful rich people in this country but the problem is we don't have enough successful people. Which is why our poverty rate is as high as it is which is twice as much as other developed nations. But to argue that its somehow unfair or unjust to have people who make so much more money then others. Is not true and what we need to do is to develop a system that develops a lot more successful people then we do and that gets to better education.

At risk of sounding like an old man, I don’t get the women smoking in jeans fad. I get the tight jeans and skinny jeans part, but what is so sexy or awesome or hot or whatever about seeing a women smoking regardless of what she is wearing? Especially since smoking “is like so not awesome anymore”. To use a valley phrase with so many Americans understanding the dangers of tobacco and the addiction part and not wanting to deal with the health effects of tobacco consumption later on in life. Now as far as the women in the video, again not interested in the smoking part. But a very attractive sexy women in skinny denim jeans in boots. A classic look that is not going away anytime soon, not with women like this and with healthier and curvy women around and still coming up.Julie Skyhigh: Julie Skyhigh Denim Jeans Fetish

Thursday, February 14, 2013

The Fast and The Furious is not one of my favorite movies and certainly not a great movie and perhaps not even a very good movie. It is watchable and it is entertaining and has a lot of good car races and car chases. The cast is fairly good, but this movie is mostly a style movie intended on looking cool based on special effects, catch phrases and the people in it. Not so much on plot and little and perhaps annoying things to young producers and directors today, things like acting and writing. Not a very good movie based on that, but that is not what this movie is about anyway. But perhaps the best three parts of this movie are Michelle Rodriguez, Vin Diesel and Letty and Dom together. They actually seem like real people in this movie. And not people trying to be someone else. And they look great and are great together. As you see in this deleted scene.Michelle Rodriguez Brazil: The Fast and The Furious- Dom & Letty

I'm not sure why we are even debating this since we are talking about the mentally ill and even criminals. Who represent a threat to a society as well as themselves but more importantly to innocent people who just want to live their lives. We have to have a system that deals with people who intentionally hurt innocent people, or who hurt innocent people by acting. Irresponsible or hurt people because they simply don't understand the consequences of their bad decisions. Because of some type of mental defect and since we now live in a World where Libertarianism has more. Influence on our political discourse and how we look at issues we deal with. And since todays Libertarians sound more anarchic, people who just don't believe that individuals have the right. To live their own lives as long as they aren't infringing on others to live there's. Which is something I agree with as a Liberal but modern Libertarians as I guess I'll call them have taken. That a step forward and now have lately been arguing that government shouldn't even be involved in dealing. With people who hurt innocent people, that somehow thats an infringement on individual freedom as well. Which is why I say that modern Libertarians now sound more anarchic then Libertarian.

Do we have a perfect prison and mental health system, of course not stupid question that I only pose. Not expecting anyone to answer but I do that for this simple reason to layout for anyone who might think otherwise. That I'm defending the current prison and mental health system, which of course I'm not and you already know that if you read this blog on a regular basis. What I'm saying that if you are going to have a civilize society, which the United States clearly is. Then you have to have a functional Federal Constitution that defends individual liberty including the right of individuals to live. As long as they aren't intentionally taking the innocent lives of others. And for other offenders who hurt people again by being irresponsible, like drunk driving to use as an example. Or hurt people because they simply don't understand the consequences of their decisions. Like with what we've been seeing with these gun violence incidents the last few years. Then we as a people have a right to expect our government to deal with these people in a humane and responsible way. So they can't threaten innocent people.

This means having a corrections not prison system that houses people who are threats to society. But in a humane and responsible way that treats these people like humans and gives them the opportunity to become responsible productive people. Even if that means they are serving life sentences and in a lot of times they aren't. Which is why they should be prepared to live and succeed on the outside and we need to fully fund our mental healthcare system. So those people get the care that they need to be as productive, functional and responsible. As they can for society or while they are institutionalized.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Line dancing aint my thang, so to speak, but I would be more than happy to learn how and do it with a sexy women who knows how to do it. And is something that I love watching sexy country and cowgirls do and watching them move. Because they are very attractive sexy women who take care of themselves and keep in great shape because they sort of have to because of the lifestyles they live. And the work they do either something to do with the country music business, even managing or working at country bars, or actually being performers themselves. Or working on farms or ranches out West like in Colorado. And they look great moving around and moving their legs and everything else. Giving guys a lot of thrill rides, if you know what I mean. And a pleasure to watch.

At risk of breaking already known news, if that makes any sense. This is no longer the New Deal/Great Society Progressive era in the United States as well as Democratic Party. And even though there are still Progressive/Social Democrats in the Democratic and outside of the Democratic Party in. America they are no longer running the DP or are in charge of the DP, they now run the Green Party and the. Democratic Socialist Party and whatever is left of the Progressive Party in America. Doesn't mean economic Liberalism is dead and not doing well but tying the success of the economy to how much the. Federal Government does for its people rather then what the people are able to do for themselves. Is not economic Liberalism to begin with and what we heard last night was an economically Liberal speech. And even a socially Liberal speech in that we need government to do certain things in the economy for it to be. As strong as possible so as many Americans as possible have the ability to live the American dream. And be able to live their own lives and be able to support themselves.

What we heard last night from President Obama was an economic Liberal speech that represents where the Democratic Party is in America. Today the so called modern Democratic Party thats now combined economic freedom but economic freedom that works for the whole country and not just a few. To go along with social freedom where the DP has been since the 1960s anyway. And the DP not all Democrats but as a whole the DP has moved past the New Deal/Great Society era. That its obviously not looking to end those programs but to reform them and have them work better. But moving past this by using government to empower as many people as possible to be able to have the freedom that the. Rest of the country has and not have to live in poverty and to accomplish these things. Government needs to do certain things, as it relates to infrastructure investment, public education, energy policy. Research and development, a tax code that promotes economic and job growth and a public assistance system that empowers people who need it. Be able to take care of themselves.

President Obama did not give a New Deal/Great Society speech last night with a host of new proposals to create new Federal programs. Or invest a lot more money in the current programs but to highlight the areas of what we need the Federal Government to do. So that we have an economic system that thrives for the whole country or as many people as possible. Instead of just a few people, which is what economic Liberalism is about.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

This is a great discussion and debate to have because anyone who believes in Democracy. Whether its Liberal-Democracy in America or Social-Democracy in Canada or Europe or Australia. And parts of Asia believes in a certain level of freedom, some just more then others. But if you are on the center-right or on the center-left such as myself. You believe in a great deal of individual freedom and the ability for one to live their own lives and chart their own course. In life without government harassing them or controlling them or telling them how they should live their own lives. As long as we aren't interfering with others freedom to live their own lives. Thats what individual freedom is in its Liberal form, a Liberal amount of freedom not government. And as well as Conservative form, meaning its the job of government to conserve freedom. Not try to restrict it or subtract from it. Thats what Liberal-Democracy is if you are a Liberal or a Conservative, not doing everything by majority rule but protecting. Individual freedom even if it were to become unpopular.

But here's an area where government should come in and plays a role. For one protect individual freedom and not try to restrict it or subtract from it. That means people who already have the individual freedom to live their own lives. That freedom has to be protected as far as the people who still deserve that freedom. Meaning they haven't hurt any innocent people but that government also has a role to play to see that there's a system in place. Where as many Americans as possible have the opportunity to live in freedom in America. Meaning as many people as possible have access to a good education, that we have a. Public infrastructure system so we can all get around the country in a timely and affordable way. And that we have a tax system that promotes economic and job growth in America. Promotes success and doesn't subsidize things that lead to weak economic and job growth. And that government doesn't overtax and regulate but does enough of those things to promote economic and job growth.

Thats what freedom is at least coming from a Liberal such as myself rather then government running a system. That protects people from making bad mistakes by trying to run their lives for them both economically and socially. But that for a functioning Democracy to work we need people to be able to run their own lives and have incentive to be successful. So we have as many successful free people in the country.

Monday, February 11, 2013

Skinny jeans with boots, whether they’re skinny denims or skinny leathers and of course skinny denim jeans are more popular than leathers, but you’re talking about a classic combination. That really goes back to the late 1970s as far as mainstream pop culture in America. When the country moved away from bell bottoms and flair hippie jeans. (As I call them). Jean pants that are very baggie and even looser than what are called trouser jeans today. Pants that were designed to look stylish and somewhat rock and roll and Hollywood, but did nothing to show a woman’s legs or butt. We went from this look of the early and mid 1970s, to the designer jeans wave of the late 1970s. Where all the new denims were designed to show a women’s legs and butt. Where most of them were dark wash and where you have fancy leather designer tags on the jeans. From labels like Calvin Klein, Lee, Gloria Vanderbilt, Levis even. All these designer jeans that were huge and all over TV in the late 1970s and through the 1980s, all came about starting in 1978 and 79.

Before the designer jean revolution of the late 1970s, tight denim jeans, what are called skinny jeans, were only popular in Western and biker culture and a certain extent rock and roll culture. At least for women, because women back then didn’t feel the freedom to highlight their legs and butts. Even in a stylish way where they would wear a nice blouse and sport jacket and western boots with their jeans. Before 1978 women were supposed to look somewhat conservative at least in the sense they weren’t supposed to show their legs and butts, at least with pants. Short skirts, were considered somewhat acceptable, just not tight pants and certainly not tight jeans. That all changed in the late 1970s with shows like Threes Company, Dukes of Hazard, Taxi and few others. Where you saw beautiful sexy women on a regular basis sporting tight designer jeans and wore them with boots regularly and wore jeans in boots. And America if anything has just gotten more liberal with our wardrobe and jeans wardrobe for both men and women ever since.

We’ve gone to the designer jean revolution for women of the late 1970s and into the early and mid 1980s, to the horribly failed experiment of the acid wash jeans wave of the late 1980s. Back to Levis era of the early and mid 1990s, to another designer jeans revolution of the late 1990s. That we’ve never moved away from. Wear the jeans weren’t new as far as design, because they were based on the jeans from the late 1970s and early 80s. To the jeans in boots look from the mid 2000s that I again were still in. Where beautiful sexy women not just want to show their legs and look stylish doing it and not like strippers or prostitutes, but are expected to wear skinny jeans and wear the right skinny denims for their legs and wear them with boots. Western boots, riding boots, biker boots. There plenty of stylish sexy boots for women to wear with their jeans without looking like hookers. And this has been a great style era for women, but also for men. Because we get to check them out.City Soles TV: Wearing Skinny Jeans With Boots

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Capital punishment like abortion and war and peace are perhaps the three most difficult issues to look at. Unless you exclusively look at them from left or right leanings for or against or vice versa. Because we are talking about life here and when should it be allowed to end and what does the role of government have to do with it. And you can make a good intelligent case for or against on all three of these issues because even convicted murderers even. Convicted murderers who are guilty of the crime they've been convicted of are entitled to Constitutional rights.

The job of the state is to respect and enforce the laws and protect us from people who would harm us intentionally. So for me on this issue gets to the Constitutional rights. Of the individual who murders, as well as the general publics right to live in a safe environment. Individuals in America have the right to life but we don't have the right to take the lives of innocent people. And its the job of the state whatever the level of government to step in when one of us murders an innocent person. And the question is what should the state do with someone who murders someone or murders people like in the case of a serial murderer. There's another debate in America as it comes to life in whether or not we should value the lives of some more. Then others or should we all be judged equally as individuals but the fact is we as a country including government. We value some people more then others even government and that we value the lives of people who don't hurt the innocent intentionally or otherwise. And if anything work and help people who are less fortunate more then people who hurt and take the lives of the innocent.

People who break the law by hurting the innocent intentionally or by acting irresponsibility and commit felonies. End up going to prison and end up spending time there that no one in their right mind would want to do and lose a certain level of quality of life as well as freedom. As oppose to people who do the right thing and live productive lives and produce for society. So knowing this we know that as a country we value some lives more then others. When it comes to capital punishment the question is does the state have the right to take the lives of people. Who intentionally kill innocent people which is exactly what murder is and under what circumstances. Who represent a threat to intentionally kill more innocent people in the future. Because they either enjoy murdering people or killing in general or simply believe they are justified in murdering people.

This is a tough debate for me as a Liberal as someone who does respect and believe in the right to life as well as individual freedom. Who doesn't want to see any innocent people murdered including convicted murderers who are innocent. But I do believe the capital punishment should be legal and rare and only subjected to people. Who are actually guilty meaning, there's no question that they murdered the person or people they were convicted of murdering. Who represent a serious threat to murder or kill again. For all other convicted murderers, life without parole is a justifiable punishment.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Not a fan of country music, at least generally. I actually tend to make fun of it when I hear it and do my country boy impersonation. But I like this song and not because it is a country song, but because it sounds more like a country rock song. It has more of a rock beat to it and is a party song. Plus the video looks real good with two sexy women in moving and running around and then you have Colt Ford in the background sing his tune using I guess his own concert video footage. Plus this is a very well-written song and Colt has a real good voice. Like to hear him do more country rock, if not blues rock which is popular in the South and broader rural America. Because he has that type of personal background and sound to his music. So I like this song a lot and it have a very good video as well.

The Middle East or Arabia that extends from Morocco in the West all the way over to Iraq in the East. Has always been an area thats vast in land and resources thats had a good population in numbers but have never been overpopulated. Where a lot of these countries should today be first world countries like Egypt, Libya, perhaps Algeria and Iraq. But has never ever except for Saudi Arabia and the tiny Persian Gulf states has never reached their full potential or even come close. Because its always been overrun by one form of Authoritarianism or another. Generally military and Theocratic Authoritarianism or in some countries Arabia's version of Communism. Like in Iraq and Syria's case which is called Baathism.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

As a Liberal whose a Liberal in the real sense and not a Liberal that looks more like a Social-Democrat. That today's so called 'modern Liberals' look like, I do to believe in the philosophy of individual freedom and with that comes property rights. That the state doesn't own us or our property as long as we aren't interfering with others property rights. Trying to dictate to others how they live or interfering with their property. This is the big thing that separates Liberals from todays Social-Democrats or Progressives who believe we are all part of the same. Society and that the state has a role to make sure that everyone has enough and no one has too much. Even if that means individual freedom and property rights need to be restricted. Social-Democrats are collectivists by nature and don't like the idea of individual freedom very much. Because they believe it leads to inequality of people having too much and too little and so fourth. You don't have to be a Libertarian or classical Conservative to believe in individual freedom and. Property rights even Progressives who aren't Marxists believe in a certain level of economic freedom. And property rights but we all differ as far as how much of these things we should have.

You can't have much of a Liberal-Democracy if you don't have at least a certain level of economic freedom as well as social freedom. Without property rights which covers both, we would essentially all be subjects of the state. And I don't believes todays Progressives or Social-Democrats understand this. Without property rights, the state would be able to take away our homes, business's, come onto our property and so fourth without needing things like. Search warrants and so fourth because government would own everything. It would be governments world and we would just be living in it, essentially prisoners in our own country. Which is what happens in Authoritarian countries where freedom and rights are very limited if any freedom. At all which I believe is something that Progressives need to think about going forward. How much power do they want to give the Federal Government or any government over the people. Even if that power is suppose to be used for our own good.

The only thing I would disagree with Walter Williams on is when it comes to these issues. Is relating slavery to taxes, slavery is force labor for someone's else's benefit. With no financial compensation for the slave, the only compensation comes being able to stay alive. To work for the master and if you are going to have a functioning civilize society with law. And order as well as freedom, you need government to enforce our laws and rights and not violate. Those things and they need revenue to do that.

Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Full Throttle Saloon is a show that I watch from time to time, not on a regular basis. And it is basically about a bar that is a hell of a lot more than a bar somewhere in the Dakotas. It is sort of a combination of concerts, amusement park and a bar. A basically and entertainment center for adults like you would see with casinos in Las Vegas. This place is not a casino as far as I know, but a place where adults can go and see all sorts of entertainment. And I guess this was one of the shows that was put on at Full Throttle. A water fight with a big tall sexy curvy blonde, nailing another women with her water gun in a water fight. And you see many different sexy women like Angie in events like this. And you see biker women, cowgirls, rocker chicks who come by to have a great time. As well as performing themselves and makes for an interesting place to have a good time.

Republican foreign policy use to actually be Conservative not so much now as the party as a whole has become more Neoconservative. But the GOP foreign policy use to be based on being strong at home and broad, having a strong national defense. That could not only defend the United States to the point that no one would be crazy enough to attack us at home. Any country that is and that we can also effectively respond to crisis's abroad where our national interests are at stake. And that it was also realistic that there was a limit to what America could do alone especially with just our military alone. And that we should never rush to war and never look to go to war but that military force always has to be an option. But only when its the best option and when all other viable options are already used and that we have to have. Partners around the World to work with us to protect and expand freedom. That again we couldn't do everything thing on our own, which is one of the things that I respect about President Reagan. Because as much as we was called a war monger by the far-left in America, he never needed to take us to war.

This is why I believe President Bush was a real Conservative and not as Centrist as some of his Republican critics have accused him of being. And that his son George W. is less of a Conservative at least while as President then his father was. Because if you look at Conservatism at its roots its about conserving and moving cautiously to avoid making mistakes and going too far. Which is a big reason why H.W. was such an effective President when it came to foreign policy and I believe overall one of. The most underrated American President we've ever had and with this blog in Reason today this is something that I believe Senator Rand Paul understands. That you can't judge American power and strength based on how much we spend on it but how powerful and strong we are. Which separates Conservatives from Neoconservatives, Conservatives operate in the real world when it comes to. Foreign policy and Neoconservatives operate in the world that they want when it comes to foreign policy.

And this also why Senator Rand Paul is not a Libertarian in the classical sense. But a Conservative-Libertarian, someone who values individual freedom but in a broad sense. Not just as it relates to economic freedom or corporate freedom or Christianity but social freedom as well. But combines those values with a realistic foreign policy that combines a strong national defense and using it. When we need to, to protect our national defense but also applying fiscal Conservatism to it. This is the defense that we need and no more, not just spending money to be strong but spending money wisely. And eliminating defense waste whenever it exists as well.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

The song to me is pretty corny and maybe that is just because I’m not a country music fan. I can if doubt that and perhaps I’m just being nice. But I like the video because I like sexy country girls, which is exactly what you see in this video. Sexy country girls in action on the farm or ranch doing their thing and perhaps doing it as well as country boys. Well at least they look at lot better than country boys. And this is just an example of why guys regardless of where they come from like country girls and how they carry themselves at least from a physical perspective. Because these women tend to be very attractive and very sexy and you get to see them in action or horses and on stage and doing rodeos, driving trucks, riding motor bikes and everything else that country girls do.

There's a building civil war in the Republican Party today about where they should go in the future. And how they should respond to the 2012 elections where they practically lost every major demographic group. Except for Caucasians especially in rural areas and Evangelicals and. Lost the popular vote in the House, dropped two seats in the Senate and Senate Democrats added to their majority. And President Obama not only getting reelected but winning the popular vote and electoral college as well as every. Republican swing state he won back in 2008 except for Indiana and North Carolina that are typically reliable Republican states anyway. And we are hearing Republicans in different factions debate amongst themselves how to move forward. And expand their base.

What it sounds like House Leader Eric Cantor is doing after he read the results of the 2012 elections correctly. And based on this new agenda he's pushing and speeches he's been giving. And base on this I believe he's read the elections results correctly at least so far. Is that he believes the Republican Party at least in the House of Representatives needs a positive agenda and message. That can appeal to people outside of the Republican Party especially young voters and perhaps Latinos and Asians. And just saying what you are against things and never being in favor of compromise despite the fact that. All of the power you have is control of the lower chamber of Congress and that you need to layout what you. Are for that can appeal to people who aren't hardcore Republicans today in the Tea Party. And even live outside of the Bible Belt and aren't interested in pushing issues like abortion, pornography. And homosexuality, that the GOP needs an economic agenda that can appeal to Americans outside of the. Republican Party and be able to keep Republicans in the Northeast and Northwest that perhaps are considering leaving the GOP. From doing that so they can remain competitive in the future.

What it sounds like Representative Paul Ryan is doing Chairman of the Budget Committee is doing. Is using the national attention he got from running for Vice President in 2012 for Mitt Romney. To continue to push the same agenda he's been pushing since 2009 when Barack Obama became. President and when he was still the Ranking Member of the Budget Committee when House Democrats were. Still in charge, at least as it relates to the economy with major cuts in discretionary spending. Basically non defense and entitlement spending where most of the money in the Federal budget is not. And continue to gain momentum with the Tea Party movement. At least when it comes to fiscal policy but right now he's in talks with House Democrats and others on a comprehensive immigration reform plan. That House Republicans and Democrats are getting ready to release. So Rep. Ryan is looking to expand his base in at least one area.

Its clear that Republicans especially in the House assuming if they are interested in keeping their majority in the future. And if they have any hopes of ever winning back the Senate in the near future. Needs a new agenda to appeal to more Americans. Especially younger Americans and people who live in. Metropolitan areas and outside of the Bible Belt where most of the country lives. And that means they got to get off of the divisive social issues and start believing in the thing they keep saying they do. Which is freedom but for all Americans and across the board and a Conservative economic agenda. That would benefit all Americans would be a start.

Monday, February 4, 2013

The first person in this video who said the American economy is moving sideways said it perfectly. Overall except for the economy losing .01 of a percent in the last quarter of 2012. The American economy is moving sideways, we aren't really losing ground overall from last year. But we aren't really gaining much ground either, because unemployment has been stuck at 7.9%. Its great that we are finally under 8% for the first time since 2009 but we are really moving forward in. Job growth we are just creating enough jobs and have enough consumer spending to hold ground but aren't. Really making much progress from what we did in the third quarter of 2012 where we did grow at 3%. And finally got the unemployment rate under 8% but we aren't doing well enough to move forward and generate real economic and job growth.

And a lot of this has to do with the fact that the Federal Government won't get out of the way and won't take care of their own business. As it has to do with the debt and deficit, the debt ceiling and the private sector because of this. Business's and consumers aren't comfortable enough to invest real money right now.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Strange video and not just because she was speaking in another language, I believe Italian. But that she felt the need to get herself so close to her computer I guess in order to get herself filmed. That she didn’t use a cam corder or something that could record from a distance and we could see her moving around or sitting down, or have someone film her. Instead of her just making the video right in front of her computer like she was uploading something for Facebook or MySpace, or a dating site or something. But having said all that, pretty good with a good sense of style. Looking like a women who is going out shopping in a big city on the weekend or something. With the makeup, jacket, great jeans and nice boots as well.

Friday, February 1, 2013

It wasn't Chuck Hagel's best day on Thursday, he was on defense in a lot of the hearing at least when the Republicans were questioning him. But it wasn't those GOP Senators best day either treating an Army veteran and one of their former colleagues like he was being cross examined. In court and trying to subject him to a lot of yes or no questions and not allowing him to share with them and the American people. More of his thinking on a lot of these key issues.

Follow Me On Facebook

Ederik Schneider Online

FRS FreeState Now on Google+

About Me

I'm a full-time blogger about everything that I'm interested in. Mainly about current affairs, news, politics and history. But I think like most people I'm interested in a lot of different things. I kind of like to know what is going on around and everything that is important and interesting. Instead of spending my a lot of my free time trying to find out everything that is going on in the world of sports. Or who is the latest hot pop culture celebrity and why that person is in jail, or who they're current seeing and so-forth.

I like to know what is going on in sports. What are the good movies that are coming out and if people I like and respect will be in them. But I also want to know about what is going on in government and politics. Since we all have to pay for that whether we like it, or not. And it affects all of us whether we like that, or not. I want to know about everything that is important and interesting. Especially if it is interesting and one of the reasons I love being a blogger is that I get officially weigh in on things that I'm interested in and knowledgeable about.

I don't consider myself to be an expert on anything. But I'm knowledgable about everything that I comment on and blog about. Comes with being interested in a whole wide-range of subjects. And watching a lot of news sports and otherwise, as well as reading about those things. And watching a lot of documentaries. And another thing about being a blogger is that you hear how knowledgeable you're public thinks you are. Which I welcome, just as long as the public keeps their comments professional, respectful and on subject.